Strelka cannot see mate in 1

[Uri Blass]

I think vas was sort of screwed and made the best of a bad situation. Strelka was going to be distributed no matter what, so why oppose it. Vas said that strelka was way behind the current version of rybka anyway...So Vas did not do more to oppose strelka because there was little practical value in opposing it.


This does not mean that the whole strelka thing is ethical. You can not determine how ethical it is by looking at vas' rather pragmatic behaviour. Uri, it is like you are trying to make the following arguement: "if vas does not strongly oppose the distrubtion or discussion of strelka, then the decompiling of strelka was ethical." This argument is simply not true.

There is hardly any money in chess programing and I am sure it is hard work. I think it is wrong for another programmer to steal that work. I think it is wrong to in any way reinforce the stealing of code (or decompiling).


best

Joseph

The question if it was correct to release strelka in the first place is a different question than the main question that is discussed here.

The main question is what to do now and not about the past and some people suggest to delete discussions about strelka.

There is no reason to try to protect Vas from a threat if he does not do minimal steps to protect himself against the same threat in the rybka forum.

If Vas does not tell moderators to delete discussions about strelka then
there is no reason to forbid them in other forums.
If Vas does not tell moderators to delete links for strelka code there is no reason for moderators of other forums to delete them.

I guess that you are going to see less strelka threads in case that Vas decides to delete threads about strelka and I can tell you that I am going to post nothing about strelka in this forum in case that Vas does not allow posts about strelka in the rybka forum.

Uri

[F. Bluemers]

What's up, where is Ben Lau? None of our moderators have eye problems, so try posting in a smaller font. You are mad that no one lets your buddy (or you) post about an engine named Hussle or sCoffield??

Hi Tony,
this Terry Barrack obviously IS Ben Lau.Just another clone
Best
Fonzy

[Andrew]

Yet another once interesting thread taken over by clone talk. Please
take this to another thread and keep things on topic! How hard can that
be???

Andrew

Is Strelka a legal engine now ?
And if the clone engines can be talked about freely in ccc?

But I still have read some old threads in ccc as follows:

Have you seen the threads in Rybka forum?
Some guys disassembled Strelka 1.0 or 1.8, i don't remember which one exactly, and posted results in a thread.

There were:
1)Huge segments of data with same values. Means-Rybka eval and material imbalance tables were copied.
2)Segments of code that corresponded to the search. Was the same. Two different search functions do not produce the same assembly code. Even if you give a same algorithm and they have 2 (equivalent!) implementations, they are very unlikely to produce the same assembly code. If the algorithm is complex enough. Rybka's search is complex enough, so we have to deal with something extraordinary here.

Then, there were a couple of threads where people posted positions were Rybka had faulty evaluation/bug, and Strelka too. They tried other engines -none produced the bug. It's not the same eval, the same line-its a BUG.


Some people claim everything is a clone. For them-evidence is a blind belief in good Vasik and evil russians. When they see same UCI strings and similar playing style, it's over. You cannot change their mind.

In the begining Vas was not saying Strelka is a clone. He was saying that, say, displaying +-320 as a mate score is very natural (he said it's something like the biggest value you can store in a hash entry), not implementing underpromotion is very natural too, and people should not make claims about clone based on that. However, after they posted the search stuff and the data tables, he pretty much changed his opinion.

I don't know what is enough evidence for you. For me, however, same assembler footprint for the SEARCH, same CONSTANTS, same BUGS is more than enough.

Is that true?